Case 4104688/2024 · Employment Tribunal
16 A (Scot) Rule judgment template (simple) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104688/2024 Mr A Komorowska v Konnor R Kwapisz, trading as Relish It — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104688/2024
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
16 A (Scot) Rule judgment template (simple) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104688/2024 Mr A Komorowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so Employment Judge M Sangster decided the case on the available material under rule 21. The tribunal found that Mr A Komorowska had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered Konnor R Kwapisz trading as Relish It to pay gross damages of £1,025.00, described in the judgment as five weeks' pay.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,025.00. The judgment further provided that, if required by law, the respondent could deduct income tax and employee National Insurance Contributions from the breach-of-contract sum and remit those sums to HMRC, with written evidence to the claimant; payment of the balance would satisfy that part of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | No response was presented. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered gross damages of £1,025.00, described as five weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,025 |
| Redundancy | No response was presented. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,025.00. | Upheld | — | £1,025 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,050
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.